The Irish rental market needs more regulation

Donald Trump

beauf wrote: »

It has multiple means depending on context.





There a whole load of other meanings. Its quite obvious social privilege is implied and when challenged, people backtrack and conflate into some other meaning.

I'm not sure what you're smoking there but it must be good!


I made that point that access to credit is a privilege. If you equate that statement with saying that someone's daddy was a rich man and they got everything handed to them then that is solely in your head. That's obviously a personal issue to you if you want to warp something to mean that when it was, by any objective interpretation, nothing to do with that.



It is a privilege to have access to credit. There are literally billions of poor on the planet whose lives could be vastly improved had they access to even small amounts of credit and whose lives could be greatly improved had they had it. There are tenant farmers who are effectively serfs who will never own the land they work because they will never get the access to the credit to buy it. There are tenants in shacks and favelas and illegal encampments across the world who will never get a step on the ladder because they don't have credit. There are people in Ireland who are stuck renting for decades because the can't get credit - even through their rent is higher than their mortgage would be.

The fact that access to credit is a privilege doesn't change because one individual went to Athlone IT and failed a few exams there. I am sure that there are plenty of people coming out of even more prestigious universities who didn't fail any exams and who don't currently have that same privilege........and isn't that the essence of the meaning? You might be in a nice position to use your privilege to buy a house and rent it to them at a cost that is higher than they'd have to pay in mortgage repayments. Which you'd be perfectly entitled to do - even without a sob story.

beauf

I just pointed out that it has multiple meanings which aren't the same and people are conflating them.

Basically this thread is now saying you can throw privilege in front of any positive thing. I might as well say it's a privilege to be able to rent, privilege to be able post in this forum.

beauf

So...

"The Irish rental market needs more regulation"

... what regulation do people want that isn't there already....

Donald Trump

beauf wrote: »

I just pointed out that it has multiple meanings which aren't the same and people are conflating them.

Basically this thread is now saying you can throw privilege in front of any positive thing. I might as well say it's a privilege to be able to rent, privilege to be able post in this forum.

The mods would be fairly quick to threaten removal of privileges should we continue along this vein!



I'm not criticizing you. Fair play to you. There is nothing wrong with trying hard and working. That is what we all try to do. Or most of us. I consider myself relatively privileged because of what I was able to do and opportunities that I got. I'm not saying that things were handed to me or that it was all luck etc etc.

steddyeddy

beauf wrote: »

So...

"The Irish rental market needs more regulation"

... what regulation do people want that isn't there already....

Well actually B I want it to go both ways. I would like stricter regulations regarding landlords evicting people, entering premises without permission and withholding deposits. In the article I linked it details the fact that over thirty landlords have >10 cases taken against them for the aforementioned breaches of tenancy law. I think that we should be following suit with other countries to ban landlords with multiple offences from renting property.

I currently live between the England/US and some states/shires are starting to effectively ban people from renting properties.

Should those laws come in then I would also like stricter laws brought in against problem tenants.

A new piece of legislation has been invoked to ban a landlord from any involvement in the private rental sector for the next five years - and the move has been welcomed by a firm of property solicitors.

Letting Agent Today has already reported that in a case brought by Telford & Wrekin council, David Beattie has been banned from being a landlord and ordered to pay back housing benefit paid to him by the authority for two of his former tenants.

At a tribunal over the summer The Property Chamber in Birmingham heard that Beattie was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence for a HMO. The tribunal also found that Beattie had issued a licence instead of an assured shorthold tenancy in a deliberate attempt to mislead tenants as to their legal rights and security of tenure.

The licences stated to tenants that they could be evicted in 48 hours or fewer.

Now the banning has been welcomed by Thursfields Solicitors; the firm says it shows how the rarely-used law - the Housing and Planning Act 2016 - cannot be ignored.

lawrencesummers

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well actually B I want it to go both ways. I would like stricter regulations regarding landlords evicting people, entering premises without permission and withholding deposits. In the article I linked it details the fact that over thirty landlords have >10 cases taken against them for the aforementioned breaches of tenancy law. I think that we should be following suit with other countries to ban landlords with multiple offences from renting property.

I currently live between the England/US and some states/shires are starting to effectively ban people from renting properties.

Should those laws come in then I would also like stricter laws brought in against problem tenants.

When the existing laws are not being enforced additional ones don’t solve anything.

steddyeddy

lawrencesummers wrote: »

When the existing laws are not being enforced additional ones don’t solve anything.

We can disagree there. I think that a provision in the current regulations to allow for banning a landlord from the market would make a lot of them think twice. It actually works quite well where I live now anyway.

CtevenSrowder

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're smoking there but it must be good!


I made that point that access to credit is a privilege. If you equate that statement with saying that someone's daddy was a rich man and they got everything handed to them then that is solely in your head. That's obviously a personal issue to you if you want to warp something to mean that when it was, by any objective interpretation, nothing to do with that.

Don't be ridiculous. Literally a few posts back you said:

Donald Trump wrote: »

Sure look. You can try pointing out to the fella who went to school in Blackrock, repeated their Leaving in Leeson St to get the points to get into BESS in Trinity and then got a start in his daddy's friend's business that he had some advantages by happenstance of birth and I'm sure that he will reply that he worked to get where he was and that was the only thing that contributed


Access to credit is a privilege. Whether you respect that or not it is fact

Privilege is almost exclusively used in a negative way nowadays, and certainly your use of it is in this context. You are just trying to backtrack.

beauf

Donald Trump wrote: »

The mods would be fairly quick to threaten removal of privileges should we continue along this vein!



I'm not criticizing you. Fair play to you. There is nothing wrong with trying hard and working. That is what we all try to do. Or most of us. I consider myself relatively privileged because of what I was able to do and opportunities that I got. I'm not saying that things were handed to me or that it was all luck etc etc.

Got nothing to do with me. I have no idea why you keep referring to me, or why you want to keep harping on about privilege, or implying both are connected. How about you don't mention either going forward.

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

We can disagree there. I think that a provision in the current regulations to allow for banning a landlord from the market would make a lot of them think twice. It actually works quite well where I live now anyway.

Can you ban tenant's from the market?

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well actually B I want it to go both ways. I would like stricter regulations regarding landlords evicting people, entering premises without permission and withholding deposits. ....

Stricter in what way...

I actually asked what regulation that didn't exist already. We already have regulation for all this.

Donald Trump

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. Literally a few posts back you said:



Privilege is almost exclusively used in a negative way nowadays, and certainly your use of it is in this context. You are just trying to backtrack.

Hi,


No. I am not backtracking.



What in the my original post was incorrect on the matter.


My response about the fella from Blackrock who went on to Trinity etc was simply to point out that most people will tell you it was hard work who got them where they are. You'll note that I did not use the word privilege in that example/context. Look at what you quoted!!


So, please do tell me what you objected to in my original posts that access to credit is a privilege? You obviously think it isn't (even though it obviously is!).



(Similarly, do you think that access to a good private school isn't a privilege because sure anyone and everyone could work hard and send their kid there? If ya wanna go and apply for an MBA in Harvard and get accepted, sure that's probably wouldn't a privilege either.........)





What in my statements cut so close to the bone for you? You are very defensive.

beauf

lawrencesummers wrote: »

When the existing laws are not being enforced additional ones don’t solve anything.

Well true but they are being enforced that why they are in the news in the first place.

They are not being enforced quickly enough. That is the real issue. I'm not entirely sure that's accidental.

Cupatae

runawaybishop wrote: »

At worst they will have sunk more into a house than it is worth. That's the risk they take, waiting 10/20 years to hopefully realise a profit

If your putting 150k into your house.. you must have some outrageous house,

steddyeddy

beauf wrote: »

Stricter in what way...

I actually asked what regulation that didn't exist already. We already have regulation for all this.

I think we disagree on the use of regulation. I mean it in the sense that a provision is put in legislation for more efficient removal of a landlord from the market. Currently removal isn't efficient or feasible.

steddyeddy

Why argue over privilege. A lot of people seem to be defensive about it. I'm from one of the roughest parts of Dublin yet I'm privileged to have received an education. It doesn't mean lazy or entitled.

steddyeddy

beauf wrote: »

Got nothing to do with me. I have no idea why you keep referring to me, or why you want to keep harping on about privilege, or implying both are connected. How about you don't mention either going forward.

You two need to get a room!

jrmb

We should introduce a French-style system where lower earners can claim a tax rebate to put towards their rent. To claim it, your tenancy has to be properly registered. If a landlord doesn't comply with the rules, they won't be able to offer their property at the market rate. Prospective tenants back away when they see the difference of up to €200 per person per month, so renting off the books doesn't make sense.

steddyeddy

jrmb wrote: »

We should introduce a French-style system where lower earners can claim a tax rebate to put towards their rent. To claim it, your tenancy has to be properly registered. If a landlord doesn't comply with the rules, they won't be able to offer their property at the market rate. Prospective tenants back away when they see the difference of up to €200 per person per month, so renting off the books doesn't make sense.

One of the places I lived as a poor student was definitely off the books. I don't understand how a landlord can take a risk like that. Surely it would be a source of constant stress as you'd be wondering when you're going to get caught.

jrmb

steddyeddy wrote: »

One of the places I lived as a poor student was definitely off the books. I don't understand how a landlord can take a risk like that. Surely it would be a source of constant stress as you'd be wondering when you're going to get caught.

The reward seems to outweigh the risk in Ireland. I know several people renting properties which aren't listed with the RTB, and very few of my friends have contracts or leases. Presumably the landlord pockets the money which would otherwise be paid in tax etc.

steddyeddy

jrmb wrote: »

The reward seems to outweigh the risk in Ireland. I know several people renting properties which aren't listed with the RTB, and very few of my friends have contracts or leases. Presumably the landlord pockets the money which would otherwise be paid in tax etc.

Yes that's what this landlord did. He also lived there, not advertising it as owner occupied.

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think we disagree on the use of regulation. I mean it in the sense that a provision is put in legislation for more efficient removal of a landlord from the market. Currently removal isn't efficient or feasible.

You currently can't remove a Landord for the market. All the others you mention have legislation.

If you are able to remove a LL then you should be able to remove a tenant. That would be fair.

steddyeddy

beauf wrote: »

You currently can't remove a Landord for the market. All the others you mention have legislation.

If you are able to remove a LL then you should be able to remove a tenant. That would be fair.

Indeed but other countries have that legislation.

So you're happy to remove repeat offender landlords?

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed but other countries have that legislation.

So you're happy to remove repeat offender landlords?

If you can remove repeat tenants sure why not...

Won't make any different to LL they'll just go through someone else.

Donald Trump

jrmb wrote: »

The reward seems to outweigh the risk in Ireland. I know several people renting properties which aren't listed with the RTB, and very few of my friends have contracts or leases. Presumably the landlord pockets the money which would otherwise be paid in tax etc.

I'd imagine that such a landlord would leave himself open to being ratted out to Revenue? Whatever about other bodies, Revenue don't take any prisoners.




And if you are living in a place for a few years, sure you'd have bills and statements with that address on them proving where you lived if it ever came to it and the landlord said you weren't there.

steddyeddy

beauf wrote: »

If you can remove repeat tenants sure why not...

Won't make any different to LL they'll just go through someone else.

That's not how it works. They're not banned from a particular letting agency but also from registering as a landlord.

steddyeddy

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'd imagine that such a landlord would leave himself open to being ratted out to Revenue? Whatever about other bodies, Revenue don't take any prisoners.




And if you are living in a place for a few years, sure you'd have bills and statements with that address on them proving where you lived if it ever came to it and the landlord said you weren't there.

I was an idiot when I was younger. The landlord didn't allow personal correspondence to come to the house. He gave some BS reason at the time but I didn't care. I just needed a roof over my head. That said he really p1ssed off some former tenants who would undoubtedly rat him out.

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's not how it works. They're not banned from a particular letting agency but also from registering as a landlord.

For a LL to be operating ignoring the law there has to be tenants ignoring it also. Its sublet so many times unofficially no one knows who owns what, and who is the original tenant.

Bunch of people just posted loads of examples.

jrmb

Donald Trump wrote: »

And if you are living in a place for a few years, sure you'd have bills and statements with that address on them proving where you lived if it ever came to it and the landlord said you weren't there.

I don't know how it works from the landlord's point of view, but I've had Revenue documents, state savings, bank statements and mobile phone bills all delivered to apartments where I later learned that the landlord wasn't registered.

Yes, it's unwise to pay in cash, but if I had insisted on a lease, they would just have chosen another tenant.

runawaybishop

jrmb wrote: »

The reward seems to outweigh the risk in Ireland. I know several people renting properties which aren't listed with the RTB, and very few of my friends have contracts or leases. Presumably the landlord pockets the money which would otherwise be paid in tax etc.

RTB aren't great at updating registrations and you don't need a contract or a lease all the time. Lots of landlords don't bother registering until they need to.